(03-29-2015 08:17 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 06:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Jane Crow isn't Jim Crow. But they are certainly related. Actually as a Southerner of a certain age, I've heard very similar arguments before...wrong then. wrong now.

The specter of people being not able to use the bathroom when engaging in commerce. Check
The specter of people being turned away from hotels. Check
The specter of people being turned away from restaurants. Check.
Being promoted by angry members of the majority against a persecuted minority. Check.

These bills are simply an attempt to enable discrimination. And trust me it happens.

I know you're a southerner of a certain age, just as you know my background. Which is why I'm sure you know better than to make such allusions. Discriminatory laws against protected classes will be struck down once they reach the SCOTUS. There's no need for you and others that feel similarly slighted to make such blatant parallels between between the plight of the LBGT community today and blacks prior to 1965.

(03-29-2015 07:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is how I would handle it ....

I'm big. Some people would say I'm fat. I'm 6'2" and 275 pounds. If I went to a bakery for a wedding cake for my daughter and the bakery had a sign saying, "We don't serve fatties", I'd move on to the next bakery and that bakery would get my business. I would never file a lawsuit against the first bakery to force them to make my cake.

I'm from NYC, so I might show them my middle finger and say a few curse words, but that's all I would do.

As it currently stands, overweight/obese people aren't in a protected class. But I'm seen some preliminary work trying to label fat people as disabled. So just wait a couple of years and you'll be able to take that bakery to court too.

We see it as Jane Crow. And millions of Americans do too. And the GOP can't redistrict us out of our opinions.

Gays aren't a protected class under Federal Law or in Indiana. That's why the law is so bad.

(03-29-2015 07:41 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:47 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

Most of those states' laws only concern interactions between the state and religious entities, rather than between two private parties. This represents a huge increase in discriminations reach. Huge. In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT. In Indiana, a hotel can refuse to rent an LGBT a room. In Indiana, a restaurant can refuse to sell food to a LGBT person. None of that is authorized by the Federal law, nor by the laws in many of the other states

No.

Hotel refuses to rent a room to a LGBT couple in Indianapolis. Please let me know what legal recourse that couple has.

How is this any different than my son not being able to rent a condo for a week in Panama City because he's 24 and not 25?

There's a little fact of life you need to get used to. It's called LIBERTY. People rent to whom they wish. If you don't like it, find another hotel. It's THEIR business. Not yours. If you don't like the way Indiana handles their shite, don't live there.

Good gosh you bunch a whiny kids. Grow up. Stop being a victim and you do you.

Don't like hearing a never ending, increasing loud chorus of indignation....add LGBT persons to existing non-discrimination laws and band employment, housing, and public accommodations laws.

I don't have the right to refuse to rent a room to a Baptist Preacher if I own a hotel. Why should some Baptist have the right to rent a room to me?

You are welcome to challenge age restrictions in Bay County Florida if you'd like.

(03-29-2015 08:25 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Shocker! Obama Didn’t Vote Present, He Voted For Illinois Religious Freedom Reformation Act In 1998…



Of course past votes don't matter in Obama World....

Quote: White House spokesman Josh Earnest took aim Sunday at Indiana’s newly signed religious-freedom law, saying it appears to “legitimize discrimination,” even as critics said that President Obama voted in favor of a similar law as an Illinois state senator.

“When you have a law like this one in Indiana that seems to legitimize discrimination, it’s important for everybody to stand up and speak out,” said Mr. Earnest on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Just before Mr. Earnest made his comments, however, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence defended the law in an interview on the same show, noting that the federal government and 19 other states previously passed a Religious Freedom Reformation Act, including Illinois.

After President Bill Clinton signed the federal Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) in 1993, “some 19 states followed that, and after last year’s Hobby Lobby case, Indiana properly brought the same version that then-state Sen. Barack Obama voted for in Illinois,” Mr. Pence said.

Indiana Senate Republicans made the same point in a Thursday press release: “The bipartisan respect for religious freedom has also carried over to the votes for most state-level RFRAs. For example, when President Obama was an Illinois State Senator in 1998, he voted for Illinois’ RFRA.”

Mr. Obama served as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004. The Illinois RFRA took effect in July 1998.

Mr. Earnest dismissed the argument: “If you have to go back two decades to try to justify something that you’re doing today, it may raise some questions about the wisdom of what you’re doing.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...om-law-am/

17 years ago. Meh.

(03-29-2015 09:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 08:25 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Shocker! Obama Didn’t Vote Present, He Voted For Illinois Religious Freedom Reformation Act In 1998…



Of course past votes don't matter in Obama World....

Quote: White House spokesman Josh Earnest took aim Sunday at Indiana’s newly signed religious-freedom law, saying it appears to “legitimize discrimination,” even as critics said that President Obama voted in favor of a similar law as an Illinois state senator.

“When you have a law like this one in Indiana that seems to legitimize discrimination, it’s important for everybody to stand up and speak out,” said Mr. Earnest on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Just before Mr. Earnest made his comments, however, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence defended the law in an interview on the same show, noting that the federal government and 19 other states previously passed a Religious Freedom Reformation Act, including Illinois.

After President Bill Clinton signed the federal Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) in 1993, “some 19 states followed that, and after last year’s Hobby Lobby case, Indiana properly brought the same version that then-state Sen. Barack Obama voted for in Illinois,” Mr. Pence said.

Indiana Senate Republicans made the same point in a Thursday press release: “The bipartisan respect for religious freedom has also carried over to the votes for most state-level RFRAs. For example, when President Obama was an Illinois State Senator in 1998, he voted for Illinois’ RFRA.”

Mr. Obama served as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004. The Illinois RFRA took effect in July 1998.

Mr. Earnest dismissed the argument: “If you have to go back two decades to try to justify something that you’re doing today, it may raise some questions about the wisdom of what you’re doing.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...om-law-am/

17 years ago. Meh.

Thanks for not disappointing with that response.

(03-29-2015 07:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 07:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You of course realize that it is ILLEGAL in Indiana for a Gay supportive business to refuse to serve Baptists? Why should Baptists have the right to refuse to serve Gays?

The difference between you and I tom is that I don't think it should be Illegal for a Gay company to discriminate against Baptist.

Then again all they have to do is say they are Atheist and whatever the Baptist are asking for imposes on them.

But so long as Baptists are protected....then LGBT persons should enjoy the EXACT same protections. Why should religious persons have special rights?

I'd rather take away "special rights" than add.. Are you willing to say *IF* Gays are allowed to discriminate against baptist then were all square?

(03-29-2015 09:25 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  17 years ago. Meh.

Thanks for not disappointing with that response.

Just regurgitating Josh Earnest's comment. Tom shows no inclination to original thought.

And same question as I would have for Earnest, WTF difference does it make? How many times has Obama voted on the issue since then?

(03-29-2015 09:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Is there a legitimate religious based rationale for discrimination? I'm not sure there is. What religion compels their members to discriminate against Gay persons? And based upon what scripture is this based? Seriously guys....there's no rationale. The religious freedom argument is a total sham.

No, your reading comprehension is a total sham. Here, I'll start you off. Old Testament and New.

Leviticus 18:22

Romans 1: 26-28

And for the record, I do not discriminate against gays, because I am not in a business that is contingent on the sanctity of marriage. Gay people have to eat and live in structures just like everyone else. They do NOT have to get "married".

See, I'd bet $100 that baker would have served the gay person if the gay person had asked for a birthday cake. It is not the person he or she is discriminating against. It is the unholy wedding. That is the difference between the baker's religious freedom and the gay person's right.

(03-29-2015 10:21 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Is there a legitimate religious based rationale for discrimination? I'm not sure there is. What religion compels their members to discriminate against Gay persons? And based upon what scripture is this based? Seriously guys....there's no rationale. The religious freedom argument is a total sham.

No, your reading comprehension is a total sham. Here, I'll start you off. Old Testament and New.

Leviticus 18:22

Romans 1: 26-28

And for the record, I do not discriminate against gays, because I am not in a business that is contingent on the sanctity of marriage. Gay people have to eat and live in structures just like everyone else. They do NOT have to get "married".

See, I'd bet $100 that baker would have served the gay person if the gay person had asked for a birthday cake. It is not the person he or she is discriminating against. It is the unholy wedding. That is the difference between the baker's religious freedom and the gay person's right.

But he sells wedding cakes. So he cannot discriminate. Period. End of story.

And where does it say "refuse services to Gays" in those passages.

And do those bakeries refuse to make wedding cakes for second marriages? No. Its just phony "Christians" using the Bible erroneously in order to justify their bigotry. You see, in their world, its Gays, and only Gays that should be subject to discrimination.

Jane Crow with a Cross. And a bunch of blasphemy IMHO.

(03-29-2015 01:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Why does the left always attack religious freedom?

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would not be pleased.

I agree, for very different reasons I am sure.

(03-29-2015 10:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But he sells wedding cakes. So he cannot discriminate. Period. End of story.

Well at least you have dropped the asinine question "Is there a legitimate religious based rationale for discrimination"?

That's progress.

But making wedding cakes professionally is an art. It's not like going to the supermarket and picking a cake of the shelf. Everytime they make a cake they are applying their art.

Quote:And where does it say "refuse services to Gays" in those passages.

And were back to the stupid ass question where you want to interpret the bible (you don't believe in) for us.

Christians are told specifically that if their conscious is against it they should abstain from being a part of unholy things in the Bible. A gay wedding is unholy if you believe that sodomy is a sin.

Quote:And do those bakeries refuse to make wedding cakes for second marriages?

A second marriage takes place after the sin of divorce. It can be after repentance and can lead to a new relationship. A gay marriage can never be outside of sin.

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This...but...that is what these people do. They go out looking for problems.

(03-29-2015 04:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually it happens. Jane Crow is alive and well. And Indiana just endorsed it.

Its a mountain, not a mole hill.

And if its such a minor issue then simply why not add:

"Discrimination against LGBT persons in commerce is illegal in Indiana."

Pence was asked 9 times on TV this morning whether this bill made it legal to discriminate against LGBT persons. Nine times he refused to answer. Because he knows that the law in Indiana does exactly that. His appearance this morning did nothing to stop the growing chorus of indignation at Jane Crow in Indiana.

This law is about one thing and one thing only....to enable and further discrimination against LGBT persons.

Where's the public outrage in the other 19 states? If this so called discrimination was rampant it be all over every news channel in the nation. It's not, maybe isolated cases, but not a big deal. If a company in Indiana discrimiates, then the market will close them down. Given social media, and the national media, any establishment that discriminates stands no chance to survive.

(03-29-2015 09:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We see it as Jane Crow. And millions of Americans do too. And the GOP can't redistrict us out of our opinions.

Gays aren't a protected class under Federal Law or in Indiana. That's why the law is so bad.

Calling it Jane Crow has certainly done what it was supposed to do. Convince millions of Americans that the situation that LBGT community faces today (which is limited to marriage rights and new laws that require someone to disclose their sex/gender status before being discriminatory) is that same as the struggle for equality that blacks went through in this country.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/indiana...id/635169/

White house can't Explain Obama's support of Same thing when Senator.

This whole "outrage" brings Don Quixote to mind.........

Conn Dem Gov. Bans State-Funded Travel To Indiana Over Religious Freedom Law… Seemingly Unaware Conn Passed The Same Law



Malloy probably should have checked to see if Connecticut has its own RFRA law before issuing his travel ban to Indiana.

Quote:Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) on Monday announced he plans to sign an executive order on state-funded travel in response to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence ® signing a controversial bill into law that could allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.

Malloy’s announcement is the latest move by a top elected official from another state in protest of Pence signing the law. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee (D) last week banned state-funded travel to Indiana last week as a statement against the law. It wasn’t immediately clear from Malloy’s tweets if the executive editor was exactly the same as Lee’s move, although it’s expected to be similar.

Pence has been receiving wide criticism for signing the law and both he and top Republican lawmakers said most recently that they planned to add a clarification to try and rebut that criticism. On Sunday, Pence was pressed about the law but he wouldn’t say whether it discriminates against gay people.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/da...ign=buffer

(03-30-2015 07:23 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually it happens. Jane Crow is alive and well. And Indiana just endorsed it.

Its a mountain, not a mole hill.

And if its such a minor issue then simply why not add:

"Discrimination against LGBT persons in commerce is illegal in Indiana."

Pence was asked 9 times on TV this morning whether this bill made it legal to discriminate against LGBT persons. Nine times he refused to answer. Because he knows that the law in Indiana does exactly that. His appearance this morning did nothing to stop the growing chorus of indignation at Jane Crow in Indiana.

This law is about one thing and one thing only....to enable and further discrimination against LGBT persons.

Where's the public outrage in the other 19 states? If this so called discrimination was rampant it be all over every news channel in the nation. It's not, maybe isolated cases, but not a big deal. If a company in Indiana discrimiates, then the market will close them down. Given social media, and the national media, any establishment that discriminates stands no chance to survive.

Market forces don't protect small minorities from paying outsized discrimination costs. There are huge differences between the situation in Illinois and Indiana. There are huge differences between the Federal Law and the Indiana legislation.

By the way, Georgia just shelved its' pending Jane Crow legislation. We just stopped a similar movement in Montana. We probably can't beat it back in Arkansas. But the uproar over this issue isn't going away.

Did you see the uproar in Arizona when Jan Brewer tried this stuff?

(03-30-2015 11:50 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Conn Dem Gov. Bans State-Funded Travel To Indiana Over Religious Freedom Law… Seemingly Unaware Conn Passed The Same Law



Malloy probably should have checked to see if Connecticut has its own RFRA law before issuing his travel ban to Indiana.

Quote:Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) on Monday announced he plans to sign an executive order on state-funded travel in response to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence ® signing a controversial bill into law that could allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.

Malloy’s announcement is the latest move by a top elected official from another state in protest of Pence signing the law. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee (D) last week banned state-funded travel to Indiana last week as a statement against the law. It wasn’t immediately clear from Malloy’s tweets if the executive editor was exactly the same as Lee’s move, although it’s expected to be similar.

Pence has been receiving wide criticism for signing the law and both he and top Republican lawmakers said most recently that they planned to add a clarification to try and rebut that criticism. On Sunday, Pence was pressed about the law but he wouldn’t say whether it discriminates against gay people.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/da...ign=buffer

Connecticut has statewide protections against discrimination against LGBT persons. Indiana doesn't. That's the huge difference.

If Indiana had a law that said "it is illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons in housing, employment, or public accommodations", then the courts would have to weigh the public interest of the state when applying the law. In Indiana, there is nothing but Jane Crow. So that's why the impact is different. And the response is different.

(03-30-2015 10:01 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/indiana...id/635169/

White house can't Explain Obama's support of Same thing when Senator.

Bill Clinton voted for DOMA 20 years ago too.

Twenty years is a long time in the LGBT rights struggle.

Clinton has moved on, so has Obama. Both have always supported non-discrimination protections for LGBT persons. Pence...does not.

(03-30-2015 05:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This...but...that is what these people do. They go out looking for problems.

Did you see who was behind Gov Pence when he signed the bill? Please, go look at the photo of him signing the bill and look up their records before you accuse people of going out and looking for problems.